Scottish Government

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS OF THE PILOT WORK PROGRAMMES

217 Chapter 4 outlined how the work programme was used to develop a model for evaluation of the pilots, and explained problems with assessing improved witness experience. Another of the 5 key objectives (assessment of whether pilot/ VWO has 'added value'), is addressed through the agency survey and interviews, described in chapters 7 and 8.

218 Assessment of the remaining 3 objectives relied on input from the VWOs and LSGs and this chapter presents the available evidence on the extent to which these have been met. It considers the final 3 objectives in turn, using the following indicators:

• identification/investigation of additional needs and priorities:
  • progress on action plans, for years 1 and 2;
• establishment of a monitoring system:
  • attempts to obtain local agency data; data obtained from sheriff courts; and
  • information provided to LGS and to researchers;
• increased co-ordination between agencies:
  • identification of gaps and activities to fill these;
  • progress on establishing agency directories and local forums;
  • VWO involvement in case work; and
  • complaints or issues outstanding.

219 In other words, findings are presented under headings that correspond to the pilot objectives as used in the logic model, and the indicators chosen to measure performance against each of these. Finally, this chapter briefly considers some of the additional roles identified in the VWOs' work programme.

Identification/investigation of additional needs and priorities

220 A key indicator for achievement of this objective is the needs assessment, which is to be prepared by the VWOs by end July 2007. The timing of this indicator means that the VWOs will be able to use the evaluation report to feed into the LSGs' needs assessment, to inform the SE's decision on the future of the pilots.

221 In the meantime, the results of the local mapping and audit exercises (annexes 1 and 2) provided a baseline picture of service provision in each locality during the early stages of pilot operation. Mapping and audit exercises were stipulated by the SE from the start, and were included in the generic work programme for the pilots, with a focus on the local criminal justice systems during year 1, and on the civil justice systems during year 2. The work programme also specified what was to be covered in the mapping and audit as follows:

Identify and map

• all local services, protocols, referral systems and formal information sharing systems in relation to child and adult vulnerable witnesses;
• all relevant agency and multi-agency groups;
• strengths and weakness in system;
• gaps in system; and
• information needs and gaps for agencies and witnesses.

Audit in relation to

• current agency guidelines;
• best practice guidelines (including Child Witness Support Guidance Pack);
• legislation (including VW (S) Act 2004 and CP (S) (Amendment) Act 2004; and
• agency and interagency training.

222 It was agreed by the VWU and SE research manager that the criminal justice mapping and audit should take account of the work being undertaken by Reid Howie Associates on provision of support for victims and witnesses in Scotland. This work has now been published (Reid Howie Associates, 2006), but at the time when the VWOs were preparing for the local mapping and audit it was still a work in progress.

223 MorrisRichards were given sight of the interim report, and summarised this for the VWOs early in the evaluation period, so it could be used to inform development of the VWO mapping pro formas when interviewing agencies. In particular, the stages in the process identified by Reid Howie were noted to help structure the audit pro formas, and the list of agencies surveyed used to ensure wide coverage of local agencies in the exercises.

224 The results of the VWOs' mapping and audit for both local criminal and civil justice systems are given in annexes 1 and 2 (criminal and civil respectively).

225 The identification of local gaps, strengths and weaknesses allowed the LSGs to determine local action plans. Mapping and audit results show that not all of the deficiencies in local provision could be addressed by the pilots during their period of operation. The Ayrshire report identified 19 potential action points, and after consideration the LSG decided to focus on 10 of these. The Aberdeen LSG identified 17, of which 13 action points were adopted. This meant the needs assessments to be produced for each area could take as 2 key starting points investigation of

• whether there has been any change since the mapping and audit on issues from each locality which were not identified as pilot priorities; and
• the extent to which pilot action on priorities has resolved issues addressed.

226 Initial action plans were agreed by the LSGs at their meetings in June 2006 (Aberdeen 27.6.06, Ayrshire 2.6.06), and henceforward progress on action points has been tracked by updating these plans for each subsequent LSG meeting. Both pilots recorded specific tasks to be undertaken in pursuit of each action point, and included named responsibility for each task as well as deadlines for completion.

227 Neither LSG identified actions on the basis of pilot objectives, and a result of this was that some objectives were very well covered by the priorities decided upon (identification of additional needs and priorities and increased co-ordination between agencies) and others remained less so throughout the lifetime of the pilots (establishment of a monitoring system and self-evaluation).

Aberdeen progress on year 1 action plan

228 The Aberdeen LSG reviewed the action plan at its meeting in December 2006 ¹⁹. At that point, most of the tasks identified to progress the 13 action points had been completed, although 7 tasks remained outstanding.

229 Local priorities that formed the Aberdeen action plan were

• multi agency awareness raising on identification of vulnerability, SMs available, therapeutic support, VIPER and ID parades;
• altering CRIMEFILE;
• better communication with witnesses and police at reporting and investigation;
• consider emerging needs of emergency workers;
• awareness raising/training for social workers;
• improve understanding in voluntary organisations/ NHS;
• link voluntary organisations for additional support at various stages;
• explore formalising support at Children's Hearing sheriff court matters;
• consider inclusion of supporter at prosecution precognitions;
• consider development of information for local remote site;
• consider improving referral information to Witness Service;
• clarify roles for setting up SMs at High Court; and
• consider allowing Appropriate Adults to give in-court support.

230 Of the 7 outstanding tasks, one (the local newsletter) was signed off by the LSG at the meeting, and another (awareness raising and agency training) had been envisaged as an ongoing action point for the duration of the pilot.

231 For the remaining 4 priorities, 2 were being progressed at national level, and 2 were still being progressed by LSG members. At national level, these were

• changes to COPFS computer system to allow progress in cases involving emergency workers to be communicated to them, although locally VIA had agreed with NHS Grampian (at joint training sessions introduced by the VWO) that they will keep NHS emergency workers advised of case progress as long as the worker concerned advises VIA directly or through police officers taking statements that they consider themselves to be vulnerable, including because of their relationship with an accused person; and
• formalising of arrangements for provision of support for witnesses in civil proceedings.

232 Those being progressed by LSG members were

• the SCS leaflet on information about the local remote site; and
• the police leaflet for child witnesses, intended to help communication between witnesses/victims, Grampian Police, PF, VSS and Witness Service, to raise awareness of the VWA to witnesses; and to raise awareness of criminal justice procedures in Aberdeen as they affect witnesses.

233 A further point was also being progressed (review of practice against VWA legislation and guidance in relation to remote sites), but was proving to be difficult in the absence of cases to review.

Ayrshire progress on year 1 action plan

234 The Ayrshire LSG also reviewed its action plan at its meeting in December 2006 ²⁰. Of the tasks identified to meet the 10 action points, 7 had not yet been completed. Action points identified in Ayrshire were to

• create subgroup of Steering Group for Voluntary Organisations to create a forum of interested parties able to discuss areas of concern and interest, to share information and build confidence with statutory bodies;
• support the review of the current SPR and the flow of information from police to PF/Reporter and, where appropriate, help deliver agreed guidance protocols to operational staff;
• raise the awareness of the availability and use of VIPER throughout the criminal justice system and its implication for Children's Hearing court proceedings;
• support the level of awareness of and availability of Special Measures and in particular, the development of the remote sites provision within Ayrshire. To monitor the use of remote sites and their agreed operational protocols;
• carry out a review of historic cases in respect of how victims and vulnerable witnesses were treated within the criminal justice system and to share best practice in respect of the use of special measures throughout Scotland and Children's Hearings Court proceedings;
• attend single/multi agency meetings to help raise awareness of victims issues;
• review post trial support and exit support for cases not proceeding to trial;
• carry out local review of Appropriate Adult Scheme;
• support SCRA and Social Work Departments in the identification, assessment and support of vulnerability of vulnerable adults involved in proof hearings; and
• support Faculty of Solicitors in the identification, assessment and support of vulnerability of vulnerable adults and child defence witnesses.

235 One of these (awareness raising) had been intended as an ongoing action, as in Aberdeen, and another (review of historic cases to identify good practice in the treatment of VWs) had not been progressed because of difficulties in obtaining data to carry out such a review. Of the remaining 5

• two were still outstanding (creation of forum for local voluntary organisations; review of post-trial support);
• one was ongoing (support for local faculty in relation to vulnerable defence witnesses); and
• two were being progressed outwith the LSG (review by Strathclyde Police of its memorandum on operational guidance in relation to identification of vulnerability in the light of the Lord Advocate's guidance to police, and consideration by SCRA/ VWISG of support to VWs in proof hearings).

236 While each action plan was drawn up locally, at this headline level there are clear similarities between them. Perhaps this is hardly surprising, since the pilots are working to an agreed work programme; however, this alone could not explain the overlap of issues to be addressed. Both action plans were determined in response to the mapping and audit exercises in each area, so it is more likely that despite their different geographical locations and compositions, each pilot area had similarities in terms of issues around services to vulnerable witnesses, particularly during the roll-out of the VWA.

237 Indeed, looking at the list of priorities for each pilot, there are very few locally specific actions (eg roles for setting up special measures at the new permanent High Court at Aberdeen). Even those with local aspects (eg local remote site provision) are issues that are common around the country (Richards et al, in preparation).

238 On the other hand, the list of priorities developed were much more specific, measurable and achievable (more like ' SMART' objectives) than the list of 'current gaps' in support and at a strategic level identified in the VWOs' work programme by the SE at the start. While they may not have been area-specific, this did not necessarily make them any less valuable. It does, however, have implications for future design or the need for mapping exercises in other locations, were the pilots to be extended.

239 It is clear from the tracking of action points and tasks in year 1 of the pilots that some progress was made at local level. Awareness raising and agency training has been ongoing in both pilots, and the VWOs and LSGs continue to progress this objective.

240 Looking at action points that had not been completed shows that across both pilots several were being progressed either by LSG members, or at national level. One strength of both current pilots is the willingness of LSG members to undertake tasks to progress their local priorities. It is not surprising that action points being progressed by LSG members appear to take longer to achieve and were among those still outstanding for both pilots. Unlike the VWOs, agency representatives have to fit LSG responsibilities into their standard workloads. Both pilots also showed ability (via LSG members and VWU staff) to progress at national level some action points that could not be resolved locally.

Aberdeen progress on year 2 action plan

241 The action plan for year 2 included work carried forward from year 1, and extended the programme to civil proceedings and FAIs. As for year 1, the plan was devised in the light of a mapping and audit exercise ( see annex 2). This was completed for civil proceedings by end January 2007, and for FAIs by May 2007. The action plan was finalised at the March meeting of the LSG²¹ including awareness raising and training focusing on civil proceedings, and also assisting agencies prepare in-house training packages, and improving dissemination within the local authority (Aberdeen City Council). The plan included work on the evaluation by both MorrisRichards and the VWO, and the preparation of a final paper by the VWO for the LSG.

242 As of 25 May 2007, most action points and tasks to be undertaken were either completed or partially completed, and those outstanding either identified as ongoing or not due to complete until later in the pilot period.

Ayrshire progress on year 2 action plan

243 As with Aberdeen, action points from year 1 were continued in year 2. Although the civil audit was completed by May 2007 ( see annex 2), no new action points had been agreed with the LSG at the time of writing.

244 Tracking progress on the action points still outstanding by the end of year 1 ²², however, shows that some progress had been made by the VWO towards 2 outstanding points; the creation of a forum for voluntary organisations and on the review of post-trial support. This had involved discussions with local agencies who reported 'patchy' awareness of policy and legislation for vulnerable witnesses, but who were keen to become involved with the pilot. The review of historical cases to identify good practice was being taken forward by the local COPFS representative on the LSG.

245 The review by Strathclyde Police of its memorandum on operational guidance in the light of the Lord Advocate's guidance to police was complete, and had been published within the Force and to key stakeholders. Awareness raising and training for key staff had also begun. Consideration by SCRA/ VWISG of support to VWs in proof hearings had found that this had been identified as a national issue, as was reporters' lack of power to have a VIPER Identification conducted as part of case preparation (this has also been highlighted by the national evaluation of the VWA; Richards et al, in preparation).

246 Action to progress support for the local faculty in relation to vulnerable defence witnesses had resulted in a joint meeting between the Faculty of Solicitors, NHS Ayrshire and Arran, and Crown Office Victim and Diversity Policy and Development Division to discuss policy issues, particularly VIPER productions and the use of expert assessments. A further joint event with WS, VIA, and the VWO was also planned, specifically targeted at defence agents, and covering practical issues surrounding vulnerability and the court process.

247 At end May 2007, both pilots were progressing well towards achieving their action points, including further work on awareness raising and training that was ongoing throughout the period. As noted above, action points that are the responsibility of LSG members understandably may take longer to progress; however, further review of these points shows that they have largely been achieved.

248 In addition, the Aberdeen pilot had been able to identify new action points to cover services and support to vulnerable witnesses in civil proceedings and FAIs, and the local network was well advanced. By May 2007 two quarterly newsletters had been distributed and had resulted in widening the network, as agencies not yet linked to the pilot requested inclusion in the distribution list.

249 While the Ayrshire pilot has not yet addressed issues arising from the civil audit, this can perhaps be explained by the fact that the pilot covers a wider and less homogeneous area. The Ayrshire LSG therefore has more agencies to involve in the work, and would be expected to take longer to complete action across the entire pilot area. It may be that slower progress than in Aberdeen with the wider network may also be due to this situation.

Monitoring system in place

250 The key indicators for achievement of this objective are the provision of information to the LSG, and the agreement of priorities and direction for the pilot. Such agreement was achieved in both areas in June 2006. It followed preparation by the VWOs of draft action points, primarily based on the local mapping and audit exercises, but also on issues raised by LSG members at meetings of December 2005 (Aberdeen) and January 2006 (Ayrshire). It also followed consideration of the VWOs' national context paper by LSGs.

251 Provision of information to LSGs has been systematic and ongoing to date. Each LSG meets quarterly, and the VWOs together with VWU staff as secretariats prepare for these. Eight meetings were scheduled for the 2 year period of pilot operation, with the seventh planned for June 2007 in each pilot at the time of writing. A reporting format was quickly put into place for these meetings, with papers circulated in advance with the agenda, and each meeting involving updates on work undertaken on action points since the previous meeting. While this was generally welcomed, some LSG members were concerned that this approach meant meeting discussions could become relatively superficial.

252 The VWOs also reported to the LSGs on information and issues arising from meetings of the VWISG and VWOPSG. While MorrisRichards attended one meeting of each LSG to seek participation from agencies in the survey of witnesses, the VWOs were primarily responsible for reporting on progress with evaluation of the pilots.

Local agency data

253 It was originally intended that one aspect of information provision to the LSGs would be local data from agencies to assist in monitoring service provision. However, this proved extremely difficult and findings from the SE review of service provision (Reid Howie Associates, 2006) published during the evaluation period confirmed the lack of data on victims and witnesses in Scotland. Key fields for data collection to support these analyses were identified by the VWOs, researchers and research manager as ²³:

• Who uses the services?
• How many people are assisted?
• What is the scope of the service provided?
• What referrals are made and received by the services?
• Levels of customer complaints?
• Levels of customer satisfaction?

254 Both audit reports confirm that most agencies do not collect data on the key fields for monitoring, that even when collected these data are not easily retrievable from agency databases, and that any data collected is not comparable across agencies. This element of the work programme therefore has not been achieved.

255 A notable exception was the WS, which provided data at national level, including breakdowns for the courts in the pilots and trends over the past 3 years. These are presented in chapter 3. Raw data were not provided to the VWOs at local level. Although this reduced immediacy and local richness from the point of view of the VWOs, the data that were provided had been cleaned and subject to quality control and were in a usable form. This contrasts with the data that the VWOs were able to access locally from SCS, which are described next.

256 The VWOs were able to access some statistical information from the 3 sheriff courts covered in the pilots -Aberdeen, Ayr and Kilmarnock sheriff courts- during year 2 of pilot operation. These included some figures for the High Court in Aberdeen. Data were largely restricted to fields associated with implementation of the VWA, and even so, provided minimum information on these.

Local sheriff court data

257 Data were provided in the same format across the 3 courts, but they do not cover the same time periods, and do not include a base number for child witnesses involved in court proceedings during these periods. It is therefore impossible to place the data in context by, for example, saying how many witnesses were cited but not supported, or to show the success of measures. The time periods provided by the courts were as follows:

• Aberdeen sheriff court 24 - May 2006 to 30 January 2007;
• Ayr sheriff court - 22 May 2006 to 9 March 2007; and
• Kilmarnock sheriff court - 27 January 2006 to 11 May 2007.

258 The data show the numbers of CWNs and VW applications recorded, and although they do not include applications made at the bar on the day (potentially a key field), they record the source of the CWN or VW application made in advance; any special measures requested; and whether granted. Dates of birth were absent from Ayr and Kilmarnock data, and were largely unknown in Aberdeen. No adult VW applications were made in any of the 3 sheriff courts, or in Aberdeen High Court.

259 These statistics are set out below. Due to quality issues and because the time periods are not comparable they are not, however, presented in tabular form.

Aberdeen

260 Aberdeen data showed that between 24 May 2006 and 30 January 2007, a total of 21 Child Witness Notices ( CWNs) had been lodged in Aberdeen sheriff court, and that no vulnerable witness ( VW) applications had been made. Of the 21 CWNs, 17 had been lodged by the PF, and 4 by the children's reporter. Of the CWNs lodged, 17 included applications for SMs, but it was not known whether these were included in the other 4. Of the 17 applications for SMs, 8 were for screens, and 9 were for in-court CCTV. Data showed that 3 applications were granted, but for the remainder the outcome was not known. No applications were made during this period to use a remote location.

261 There is one dedicated remote site in Aberdeen, which means that the room is available for bookings at all times. Statistical information from the agency hosting the remote location in Aberdeen is being provided on a monthly basis. Data include enquiries made about use; number of familiarisation visits; whether or not the witness gave evidence; and numbers of cancellations of trials, both before and on the day of trial. At present, however, monitoring from February 2006 to February 2007 shows that only one child had given their evidence using the site, and that there had been a cancellation (before trial).

262 Since then, there has been a further application to use the site for 3 child witnesses aged under 12. However, when the link between the site and the courthouse was tested on the afternoon before the trial it was found that the link was faulty, and consequently the applications were reviewed and the children had to give evidence using in-court CCTV instead.

263 Aberdeen sheriff court also provided daily witness data from 12 February to 9 March 2007, which also cover the High Court in Aberdeen. Unfortunately, the data provided were still in a raw state, and sub-totals did not tally, so their quality renders them unusable at present.

264 While this information is potentially very useful for pilot monitoring, and the sheriff clerk deserves credit for providing these local monitoring data for the LSG, more work is needed on the data by SCS before they can be used. They may be able to form the basis of useful monitoring in the future. They have the potential to provide counts for

• procedures used: civil (civil proof/small claim/summary cause); referrals from Children's Hearings; criminal (summary, sheriff and jury, High Court) and FAI;
• breakdowns of witness numbers by locus, and total numbers per day;
• witness age (under 12s, 12-15 year olds and adults);
• provider of any pre-court advice;
• number of previous visits in the case; and
• total number of civil cases per day.

Ayrshire

265 The Ayrshire VWO also obtained data from both sheriff courts in the pilot area, Ayr and Kilmarnock.

266 For Ayr sheriff court, between 22 May 2006 and 9 March 2007, no VW applications were lodged, and 21 CWNs were lodged, all by the PF. Of these, 6 did not include applications for SMs, and 15 did. Of the 15 applications, 9 were for screens, 3 were for a supporter, one was for a TV link, one was for a TV link plus supporter, and one was for a remote site. All were granted.

267 For Kilmarnock sheriff court, between 27 January 2006 and 11 May 2007, no VW applications were made, and 113 CWNs were lodged. Of these, 12 were lodged by SCRA, 3 were lodged by the defence, and the remaining 98 were lodged by the PF. All SCRACWNs included applications for SMs; 5 for a supporter, 4 for CCTV plus a supporter, and 3 for a screen. One of the CWNs lodged by the defence did not include an application for SMs, and the other 2 both requested a supporter plus the court to be closed.

268 Of the 98 CWNs lodged by the PF, 45 did not include applications for SMs. There were 19 applications for CCTV plus a supporter, 13 for screens plus a supporter, 5 for a supporter, 9 for screens, 2 for CCTV, 1 for a screen plus the court to be closed, and 4 for a remote site plus a supporter. All applications were granted.

269 While these data are preliminary, the number of CWNs being submitted at Kilmarnock was noticeably higher than in Ayr or Aberdeen sheriff courts, and there was some suggestion from the interview study that this was related to increased insistence from sheriffs that the Act's requirements be met.

270 There is one ad hoc remote site in Ayrshire, located in Kilmarnock, which means that this can be booked so long as it is available when required; the equipment is stored by the sheriff clerk at Kilmarnock for transportation to and installation at the site for use. Four requests have been made to use the site, and it was used during a Sheriff and Jury trial at Ayr sheriff court in April 2007. Following use, a number of difficulties were highlighted by WS:

• there was no separate area for the participants on arrival;
• the reception area was in full use by others using the centre;
• there are limited facilities and a lack of privacy for the witness's friends and supporters, and
• technical difficulties caused delays in proceedings.

271 Lack of local monitoring data has been detrimental to the pilots' ability to assess gaps and failures in service provision to witnesses, in that the detailed information envisaged has not been forthcoming. This is particularly salient because while most pilot work is directed at agencies providing services for vulnerable witnesses, the roles of VWOs (set out in the work programme document produced by the VWU) include seeking to ensure that vulnerable witnesses are identified early, are assessed, and receive support throughout.

272 In the absence of local monitoring data, progress at local level on such major aims of the pilots simply cannot be assessed. The data provided by the sheriff courts arrived very late in the day, and too late to address issues such as data quality. There remained missing key information, such as numbers of children cited.

273 In Aberdeen, the VWO was able to carry out an independent survey of witnesses at the sheriff court, which involved observation and some interaction with witnesses from 12 February to 9 March 2007. The survey included witnesses in solemn and summary criminal proceedings, and in civil cases; it provides a useful snapshot of issues arising for all witnesses, whether covered by the Act's provisions at the time or not, as well as some instances of good professional practice.

Improving co-ordination between agencies

274 The key indicator for achievement of this objective was increased inter agency awareness, and activities contributing to this were

• mapping exercises;
• developing (and updating) an agency directory;
• establishing local forums; and
• pilot activities to fill gaps.

275 For both pilots, the mapping exercises were completed ( see annexes 1 and 2).

276 Neither of the pilots has developed agency directories to date nor developed remits for interagency use as specified in the work programme. In Aberdeen, however, the agency directory and leaflet evolved into the quarterly newsletter prepared by the VWO and circulated widely to the associated distribution network. This was partly because NHS Grampian already provide a complete and annually updated, publicly available resource ²⁴.

277 Although contact lists made for the mapping and audit exercises and the results of the mapping can be seen as key work in preparation for such directories, this activity has not been progressed further to date in Ayrshire.

278 Local forums were specifically addressed in the pilot work programme, with VWOs to

• establish a wider network of agencies with an interest in the project for information dissemination and possible consultation purposes; and
• consider specific arrangements to cover the range of adult vulnerable witness issues such as a reference group, forum or sub group of representative agencies and local projects.

279 On these points, both pilots made progress although more slowly than was envisaged. In Aberdeen, an electronic network was established after work by the VWO to contact potential members and secure agreement to join a distribution list that identified all member agency contacts to each other. To date the network as a whole has received 2 quarterly newsletters (in December 2006 and April 2007), with the VWO circulating additional material to agencies as and when relevant information is received via the pilot.

280 Progress with the wider network has been slower in Ayrshire, and although pilot data show that many of the agencies likely to participate in a network are aware of the pilot and have been in contact with the VWO, no mechanism has been put in place yet to establish a formal network. This is not unexpected given the more complex pilot model in Ayrshire.

281 A further task identified in the work programme on wider networks was to make links with other relevant partnerships and pilots, with Criminal Justice Boards/Child Protection Committees given as examples. This was not achieved, although strong links were made by the VWO in Aberdeen with the LA funded Domestic Abuse Partnership, leading to the pilot joining the partnership.

282 While both VWOs were making progress with increasing local agency co-ordination, this aspect of the pilot proved one of the most difficult, alongside obtaining local monitoring data. Indeed, the VWOs provided information on the factors adversely affecting local co-ordination, showing that lack of data was a key issue.

283 Barriers identified by the VWOs to their obtaining monitoring data that might act as evidence for local agency co-ordination were

• delays in the implementation timetable causing agencies to reduce their focus on issues relating to vulnerability;
• lack of review of existing national protocols;
• pre-existing bipartite agreements which prevent the wider sharing of information on gaps in service, to the detriment of the larger picture of services to witnesses;
• lack of statistical information produced by agencies, meaning that data have not yet been considered across agencies to identify potential gaps in service provision, and this shortcoming has been the result of certain agencies at national level refusing to engage with the local pilots; and
• lack of availability of statistics from SCS, WS and COPFS on numbers of child and adult vulnerable witnesses that are
  • being cited;
  • appearing as witnesses;
  • using special measures; or
  • using a supporter as a stand-alone measure (and not treated as a statutory special measure).

Gaps addressed and action taken as needed

284 Pilot activities to fill gaps were largely those identified from the mapping and audit exercises in each locality, and which were deemed to be local priorities, as described above. Otherwise, indicators to measure the extent of improved co-ordination between agencies were

• protocols in place and working;
• VWO involvement with cases decreases;
• numbers of complaints decreases; and
• views of agencies show satisfaction/co-operation.

285 Findings on these indicators are discussed below; however, during the course of pilot operation, further issues were identified by VWOs, and LSGs. Each VWO provided MorrisRichards with a list of additional actions taken to address gaps in local provision that became evident during pilot operation.

For Aberdeen this included the following:

• Grampian Police Family Liaison Officers ( FLOs) alerted the VWO to a gap in support for bereaved next-of-kin at the post investigation stage, when FLOs withdraw from the family and VIA are not able to fully fill the gap left. While this issue had been recognised in developing the ACPOS/ COPFS protocol, and progress made to enable VSS to be included at the early investigative stages, the VWO was able to facilitate local communication between FLOs, VIA and VSS Aberdeen to address this gap.
• Rape and Sexual Assault North East ( RASNE) were concerned about a perceived lack of response or poor response by police to complainers in allegations of rape. The VWO set up a communication link with a senior officer in Grampian Police so that this issue could be discussed and resolved.
• At the request of Aberdeen Advocacy Service, the VWO enabled communication with Aberdeen's Appropriate Adult Scheme, including provision of information about their complaints procedure.
• Children 1st were able to highlight to the VWO and LSG issues around use of the dedicated remote site that were affecting them and their operation, and which they felt were not being addressed by other local agencies.
• The VWO was able to introduce at local level the Appropriate Adult scheme to SCRA, resulting in the establishment of a protocol to allow AAs to support adults with learning disabilities during interviews with Children's Reporters.
• The VWO raised awareness at local (and national) level of difficulties experienced by NHS health visitors in communicating child protection issues to SCRA because of their lack of ability to use electronic communication (e-mail and attachments) to do this.
• Communication between SCRA and Grampian Police Northern Division was facilitated by the VWO to address issues in the reporting of youth offenders.
• The VWO introduced the local SCRA Victim Information Service officers to other local agencies to assist in awareness raising of this new service.

For Ayrshire this included the following additional actions:

• The VWO was able to help rebuild links between voluntary organisations, in particular, Women's Aid, Rape Crisis, and Barnardo's and Strathclyde Police and VIA officers after a breakdown in the flow of shared information and referrals primarily due to changes in staff, and restructuring of the Family Protection Unit within the police.
• The VWO was able to instigate a multi agency review of the Ayrshire Appropriate Adult Scheme, and this led to the introduction of a new service when it was found that the existing scheme was not fit for purpose (the new service meets national standards and includes training, accreditation and monitoring).
• The VWO in collaboration with LSG members arranged an open day to raise awareness (particularly within the legal profession) of the link between Kilmarnock sheriff court and the ad hoc remote site. An inter agency review of protocols for its use is now ongoing.
• Awareness raising on the need for early identification of vulnerability and the flow of such information was undertaken via joint PF/ VWO input to Strathclyde Police probationer training.
• Joint VIA/Witness Services/ VWO presentations to operational LA social work staff promoted awareness of services available for the vulnerable witnesses they come into contact with.
• The VWO was able to raise awareness at a local level by making a presentation to SCRA staff.
• Awareness training in respect of the VIPER facility at Saltcoats Police Office for PF, Defence Lawyers, and reporters to the children's panel was supported by the VWO.
• The VWO was able to support LA departments and local multi agency steering groups, particularly Multi Agency Racial Incident Monitoring, Domestic Violence, Community Safety and Anti Social Behaviour teams in increasing awareness of vulnerable witnesses.
• The VWO was able to inform ASSIST²⁵ in Glasgow of child witnesses' rights to special measures.
• Implementation issues at both local and national level were continuously highlighted, particularly in respect of:
  • lack of CWNs being submitted by both SCRA and defence agents;
  • variation in the number of notices being submitted in sheriff courts;
  • resource implications in the increasing use of VIPER and the need for clear guidelines in its use;
  • provision and use of the ad hoc remote site in Kilmarnock; and
  • perceived failure for agencies to share information and best practice with operational officers in other areas.

286 Both VWOs also provided information on their reporting to agencies of issues arising locally that had implications at national level, or which could not be addressed at local level. These were all related to VWA implementation.

For the Scottish Executive this included

• the lack of applications made for SMs at local level, and use of these;.and
• that a request for guidance on therapeutic support for adults made locally was quickly passed to and acted upon at a national government level.

In relation to SCS this included the following:

• highlighting issues with High Court clerks, including the clerk responsible for applications for SMs in Edinburgh and Eastern Scotland, regarding problems with the remote site in Kilmarnock;
• reporting issues raised by WS at an Ayrshire LSG meeting of which High Court clerks had not been apprised; and
• raising awareness among High Court clerks of COPFS 'fallback' procedure when VIA could not establish contact with witnesses (this had created difficulty, including with judges when a substantial proportion of witnesses were refused special measures on day of trial).

Regarding COPFS, this involved highlighting issues reported by Advocates Depute to the VWO on lack of timeous lodging of CWNs and VW applications, which are also commonly inadequately prepared (these are compiled by junior and/or trainee staff using police, VIA and/or precognition officer reports).

Protocols in place and working

287 One possible indicator of increased inter-agency co-operation was thought to be increased numbers of protocols in place and being used. While the protocols between COPFS and other agencies pre-dated the introduction of the VWA, they have been reviewed and revised to reflect changes in legislation. The Aberdeen VWO reported to the LSG that the joint working protocols in place as of June 2006 ²⁶ were:

• ACPOS/ COPFS - Domestic Abuse;
• SCRA - Victim Strategy;
• Law Society - Code of Conduct;
• COPFS - Statement on treatment of victims and witnesses;
• COPFS/ VIA/ ACPOS - Family Liaison Protocol; and
• VIA/ VSS - Operational Protocol.

288 No equivalent list was provided by the Ayrshire VWO but since all of these are national, rather than local protocols, they will cover both areas. Aberdeen LSG members were asked to identify any other protocols not listed and none were identified. LSG members reported that the protocols in operation were working satisfactorily. There is as yet no indication that the number of protocols in place has increased or altered during the course of the pilot or because of the VWO. This suggests that since protocols in place tend to be arranged at national level, they are resistant to influence from a VWO pilot and/or are not a useful indicator.

289 Information from local agencies suggest that some informal arrangements are in place in each pilot, but these are of course hard to measure.

VWO involvement with cases decreases

290 As noted in chapter 3, the VWISG had identified the need for local VWOs to operate strategically, based on gaps at this level. It had always been envisaged therefore that VWOs would not become involved in case work, unless circumstances dictated (Scottish Executive, 2005f):

"In certain circumstances it might be necessary for the officer to take an overview of specific cases and ensure their resolution. This might apply if the existing system of support and assistance has failed to meet the needs of individual witnesses. However, the officer will work in partnership with local networks to fill those gaps."

291 Both VWOs appreciated this aspect of their role; at an early meeting with MorrisRichards they stressed the importance of taking a strategic overview rather than becoming involved in individual cases. This indicator was included despite this, since it was recognised that local situations might arise where the VWOs had little choice but to become involved in casework, to the detriment of their strategic role.

292 In the event, both VWOs were able to avoid casework almost entirely. The Aberdeen VWO provided 2 examples and the Ayrshire VWO one example of circumstances where some involvement was deemed necessary, both brought to their attention by voluntary organisations. These included the following:

• A case worker at Children 1st (working with a child with a learning disability, victim and witness in a sexual abuse case against mother's former partner) called VWO to ask for advice about using a remote site for evidence giving.
• Aberdeen Advocacy Service (working with a child who has autism in a case against their father) called VWO for advice and guidance in relation to VWA provisions in such cases.
• The Ayrshire VWO became involved in one case following a request by a voluntary agency; a witness was about to go to court with little support. The VWO's response was to get VIA involved. In fact, VIA had already attempted unsuccessfully to contact this witness. The VWO was able to bring both parties together, however.

293 Otherwise, VWO involvement in cases has been to highlight issues arising in their locality for witness support more generally. Examples given were:

• lack of CWNs and VW applications recorded by SCS as lodged in advance by prosecution, SCRA and the defence, at Aberdeen sheriff court, despite local Witness Services advising that children are appearing as witnesses (one application only recorded by SCS as having been made at Aberdeen sheriff court between 31st Jan 2006 and 16th May 2007);
• monitoring and reporting the unexplained lack of use of the remote CCTV site in Aberdeen, and failure of the equipment to meet the standard of quality required by a judge;
• monitoring of request to use remote CCTV link between Lerwick, Shetland and Aberdeen High Court, which resulted in failure to identify a suitable site and child witnesses travelling to Aberdeen;
• survey statistics of witnesses cited to Ayr sheriff court passed to PF to consider impact on court process of on-going VWA implementation;
• providing information and signposting to relatives/supporters of victims and voluntary agencies in Ayrshire in respect of the VWA, and arranging contact from relevant statutory official to support vulnerable witness;
• advising individual defence agents and reporters to the children's panel in Ayrshire on due processes and existing protocols;
• perceived lack of CWNs and VW applications being lodged in the sheriff courts in Ayrshire highlighted for review; and
• reviewing of perceived shortcomings of current ad hoc remote site serving Ayrshire, and of difficulties experienced in its availability and accessibility.

294 This indicator shows that the VWOs were successful in keeping the pilots' focus on a strategic rather than hands-on role, but what is striking about all these examples is that they are concerned almost exclusively with the provisions of the VWA. From the information provided by the VWOs on issues arising for caseworkers, lack of use of these provisions and difficulties when they are used seem to be at the root of the majority of issues in providing witness support across both pilot areas.

Numbers of complaints decreases

295 This indicator was based on the VWO work programme task of providing a central contact point for independent advice or complaints where there are problems, gaps or unmet needs at an individual level, and to work with the LSG and network to co-ordinate provision or address gaps.

296 In the absence of any formal mechanisms to count complaints it has not been possible to provide hard evidence on this indicator. It is clear however, from the above section on gaps addressed and action taken as needed, that the VWOs have been working with LSGs and wider local networks to address issues, and there are many examples of successful resolution of these at local level. Some key issues raised have been those that need input at national level, and many of these are around implementation of the VWA.

297 Both VWOs provided the following summaries of current issues:

• lack of clarity about who is responsible for certain parts of the inter agency processes and information flows when dealing with issues of vulnerability within the justice system;
• lack of protocols to share information about CWNs and VW applications once granted, to ensure action;
• child witnesses are cited in a similar fashion to all other witnesses, and apart from during their evidence-giving are rarely treated as being vulnerable and needing additional support;
• the lack of remote sites, the lack of testing (and consequent failure) of remote sites before cases, standards of the CCTV equipment being used in court rooms, and equipment failure continually attract criticism and inhibit confidence in their use; and
• parents and carers who are also witnesses being kept apart from their children using remote CCTV links, this at a time when a child really needs the support of a parent.

Views of agencies show satisfaction/co-operation

298 Chapter 7 presents the results of the agency survey, which showed general satisfaction with the VWO pilots, but also some degree of ambivalence. A further indicator (referral systems in place) was to be assessed using agency records/documents. As discussed in the section on monitoring systems, agency data were not available to assess these, although in Aberdeen (as noted above) LSG members were satisfied that the existing national protocols were working well. Since referral systems form a core element of these protocols the implication must be that these too were perceived to be working well. National protocols and referral systems also apply in Ayrshire, but no evidence was provided by the LSG on their impact in this area.

Additional VWO roles

299 Both pilots have been following a specific programme of work determined by the SEVWU (Scottish Executive, 2005f). Of the 5 broad areas of work identified in the work programme, 3 mirror the performance indicators arising from the logic model and have been discussed. The remaining 2 broad areas of work were establishment of local pilot support structures and networks; and acting as a central information point.

Establishing local support structures and networks

300 Most tasks relating to this objective overlapped with indicators used in the logic model but some initial tasks set for the VWOs did not, and these were to:

• organise local pilot launch arrangements;
• write to steering group agencies with further detail on steering group remit and request nominations; and
• invite a local chairperson for each LSG.

301 These tasks were completed between mid-October and end November 2005, and the first LSG meetings took place in December 2005 (Aberdeen) and January 2006 (Ayrshire). In the event, LSG composition was as intended, with the exception of judicial involvement.

Central information point

302 Again, most tasks identified in the work programme for this area of work overlap with the indicators used to measure pilot performance, in particular developing local directories of contacts, and establishing wider networks, and these have been discussed above. In addition, however, the work programme included several additional tasks to:

• provide a central contact point for independent advice; and
• provide ongoing information on best practice and research for agencies.

303 Providing a central contact point has been a key success across both pilots, and is seen as a valuable resource by local agencies ( see chapters 7 and 8). In Aberdeen, the VWO provides a central contact point covering all child and adult services, in both criminal and civil matters at Sheriff and High Court. This includes those cases that may not eventually come to court whether because of non reporting, not proceeding, or accepting a plea on lesser/other charges. Also, although the District Court is not directly covered by the pilot, the VWO is involved in some work in such cases because it is only after the reporting and investigation stage that the PF will decide whether and where to prosecute.

304 The Aberdeen VWO also acts as a point of contact between other agencies and the justice system, including services for adults with a mental disorder, namely NHS Grampian; and education, diversity and disability support groups. The pilot is a partner in the Aberdeen City Council Domestic Abuse Project, a multi agency project enabling regular input, awareness raising, and training for all agencies connected with violence against women and children affected by domestic abuse, including drugs, alcohol and prostitution-related work.

305 In addition, although sheriffs are not represented on the LSG, the VWOs have been invited to keep Sheriffs Principal advised of local developments through personal contact. VWOs have also been asked by agencies outwith the pilot areas for information, and they have been able to provide this. For example, the child protection team at NHS Lanarkshire has requested that they receive VWOP newsletters as has a Lothian and Borders specialist police unit.

306 Both VWOs reported high levels of contact locally, and also being contacted by agencies outwith their pilot's geographical boundaries for advice and/or information. These were often from neighbouring areas, where agencies had learned of the VWO's existence through partner agencies or national meetings of managers, some of whom were in the region covered by the VWO. This is strong evidence for unmet need for information and advice outwith the pilot areas.

Summary of progress with work programme

• Criminal mappings were completed and the LSGs determined priorities and action points arising; civil mappings were completed, but in Ayrshire no new priorities had been determined at the time of writing.
• Priorities identified were very similar between pilots and are likely to be reflected across Scotland were such exercises to be repeated.
• Activities to fill gaps and activities related to VWA implementation dominated LSG action plans. Very few were uniquely local issues.
• Priorities and action points were largely completed by the VWOs. Action points for LSG members took longer to achieve, and were among those still outstanding. Some action points required action at national level, and again these are still ongoing.
• It took longer for activities to be progressed in Ayrshire, probably because of the greater number of statutory bodies involved there and less coherent nature of the region and witness services compared to Aberdeen.
• Agency directories have not been created to date and contacts had not yet been formed with Local Child Protection Committees nor with Local Criminal Justice Boards.
• The absence of local monitoring data was a key barrier to identifying issues with support to witnesses and agency co-ordination. The WS was the only agency able to supply cleaned data, made available to the researchers.
• Local sheriff courts supplied some figures late during the evaluation, which were limited and mostly related to SMs. They arrived too late to address issues such as data quality, and there remains missing key information, such as numbers of children cited. However, they indicated higher use of SMs at Kilmarnock sheriff court compared to Ayr and Aberdeen.
• Some indicators, in particular protocols in place; cases in which VWOs become involved; and complaints from witnesses to agencies proved to be less useful than envisaged.
• The VWO role as a central information point proved popular with local agencies, especially those that were not part of the justice system, and there was also demand from agencies outwith pilot areas.
• Information from VWOs indicated that lack of appropriate use of the VWA provisions, and difficulties when they are used are key issues for witness support across both pilots.
• It may be that rather than a mapping exercise and audits a 'toolkit' could be provided of action points identified by these pilots, from which any future local areas could choose priorities.